Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24412667›Full record

ArticleAnnals of emergency medicine2014

The effect of electronic health record implementation on community emergency department operational measures of performance.

Michael J Ward, Adam B Landman, Karen Case, Jessica Berthelot, Randy L Pilgrim, Jesse M Pines

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of emergency medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Effects of Common Data Errors in Electronic Health Records on Emergency Department Operational Performance Metrics: A Monte Carlo Simulation.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2015
    Article
  12. Reducing emergency department charting and ordering errors with a room number watermark on the electronic medical record display.Hawai'i journal of medicine & public health : a journal of Asia Pacific Medicine & Public Health · 2014
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Michael J WardDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN. Electronic address: mward04@gmail.com.
Adam B LandmanDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital.
Karen CaseEmergency Medicine Division, Schumacher Group.
Jessica BerthelotEmergency Medicine Division, Schumacher Group.
Randy L PilgrimEmergency Medicine Division, Schumacher Group.
Jesse M PinesDepartments of Emergency Medicine and Health Policy, George Washington University Medical Center.

Funding

The Vanderbilt Emergency Medicine Research Training Program (VEMRT)K12HL109019 · NHLBI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI COLLINS, SEAN PATRICK, STORROW, ALAN B · 2011 to 2015
$3.7M
NHLBI NIH HHS K12 HL109019NHLBI NIH HHS K12HL109019
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

objectiveWe study the effect of an emergency department (ED) electronic health record implementation on the operational metrics of a diverse group of community EDs.

methodsWe performed a retrospective before/after analysis of 23 EDs from a single management group that experienced ED electronic health record implementation (with the majority of electronic health records optimized specifically for ED use). We obtained electronic data for 4 length of stay measures (arrival to provider, admitted, discharged, and overall length of stay) and 4 measures of operational characteristics (left before treatment complete, significant returns, overall patient satisfaction, and provider efficiency). We compared the 6-month "baseline" period immediately before implementation with a "steady-state" period commencing 6 months after implementation for all 8 metrics.

resultsFor the length of stay measures, there were no differences in the arrival-to-provider interval (difference of -0.02 hours; 95% confidence interval [CI] of difference -0.12 to 0.08), admitted length of stay (difference of 0.10 hours; 95% CI of difference -0.17 to 0.37), discharged length of stay (difference of 0.07 hours; 95% CI of difference -0.07 to 0.22), and overall length of stay (difference of 0.11 hours; 95% CI of difference -0.04 to 0.27). For operational characteristics, there were no differences in the percentage who left before treatment was complete (difference of 0.24%; 95% CI of difference -0.47% to 0.95%), significant returns (difference of -0.04%; 95% CI of difference -0.48% to 0.39%), overall percentile patient satisfaction (difference of -0.02%; 95% CI of difference -2.35% to 2.30%), and provider efficiency (difference of -0.05 patients/hour; 95% CI of difference -0.11 to 0.02).

conclusionThere is no meaningful difference in 8 measures of operational performance for community EDs experiencing optimized ED electronic health record implementation between a baseline and steady-state period.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsEfficiency, OrganizationalEmergency Service, HospitalHospitals, CommunityHumansLength of StayPatient SatisfactionQuality Indicators, Health CareRetrospective StudiesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID24412667
PMCPMC4059411

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.